LIFEconnect

Inernet Ministry Conference, Newbold College

Nov 21-22, 2009.

http://reinventingsdaweel.blogspot.com

Monday, August 10, 2009

Spiritual Survival Strategies for Adventists

By Bill Colburn

My journey in Adventism has been one that often raises the question among many of my non-Adventist friends, 'why have you remained a member, even a pastor, after the many negative experiences you have had in that church?' It has taken more than an acceptance of the Adventist paradigm - to be sure! The Serenity Prayer has been instrumental.

I remember my first brush with the underbelly of Adventism when, shortly after my baptism in 1976 at 22 years of age, I was confronted by a 'lifer' who had heard that my mom was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. "How are we to know", he demanded, "that you are not a Jesuit spy just pretending to be one of us?" That dazed me for an extended moment, then I replied, "guess you don't", smiled and left it at that. What an odd fellow, I thought. I was wrong.

I soon began to regularly encounter a curious set of 'adjunctive (and dsyfunctional) fundamental' beliefs that had not been shared with me during my baptismal studies. I frequently got clobbered by such things as: appropriate beach apparel, interpretations of Sabbath keeping such as hiking was OK, but swimming was not, the 'law' against inter-racial marriages or marrying another Christian who wasn't an 'Adventist' Christian or even the 'right kind of Adventist Christian', the sacred hour for sabbath worship being at 11 am only, that I should always wear a suit to church because that is what I would wear to visit the president of the United States, to make gelatin wasn't an ingredient in my foods, to love 'hay stacks' and popcorn, that only Adventist truly knew God, and - well, the list goes on and on and on. These 'other 613' commandments actually formed the reality of Adventism far more than the 27 (er, 28).

Cultural Adventism stood out far more distinctly at the local church than the doctrinal Adventism I had initially imagined 'defined' membership. An early mentor shared with me one significant spiritual survival strategy that has worked: to differentiate between Adventist atheists and Adventist Christians. I had to accept that the church has always had and would always include both. He helped me to see that real Adventism was built on a love for Jesus not on a love for the Adventism folklore. Much that bills itself as Adventism is merely a finicky selection from the buffet of unbiblical 'street' Adventism. To be sure, this is not merely an issue among Adventists!

More painful encounters often and painfully kept challenging my commitment to the church. Usually these had to do with accusations of a sexual nature. It seemed strange to me, as a convert, that many Adventists spent a whole lot of time thinking about sex. Prior to my baptism, non-converts thought a lot about sex as well - but with the desire to enjoy it personally. After my baptism, church members spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about sex, but to make sure no one would ever 'get' what they couldn't have. I could only conclude, after some therapy of course, that if Adventists spent more time having sex they would be a far happier group of people to worship with on Sabbath. I've met a lot of madventists and sadventist, but only the sexually fulfilled could be truly happy Adventists. Maybe we ought to designate every Friday nights as.... Think how pleased the pastor would be to see his whole congregation genuinely smiling on Sabbath mornings rather than wearing a plastic smile while holding a dagger to meet him with at the front door after the sermon.

Some time after becoming an Adventist pastor I was called by my conference president about a complaint stating that I was having an affair. Turned out that an elderly member was riding by a large hotel in a Handi-van and happened to see me open the door for a young woman. No one said anything to me about it until the whole church knew and reported me to the conference. It was rather awkward to address my congregations sexual addiction from the pulpit, but I did. I invited them to all join me at that same hotel once each month - the only times I went there - to participate in the American Cancer Society board meetings with me. They could meet the woman I opened the door for - as she was the president of the local group. I got to keep my job.

Probably far more disturbing has been the necessity to not be fully honest. Seems strange to even express this in these terms, but it is what it is. To function 'healthfully' in the church - intentionally designed for sinners - I've got to be 'unhealthy' by pretending not to be a sinner.

One of our more insidious Adventist 'atheistic' beliefs is that pastors - and members - are supposed to be perfect. This, actually, is translated to mean: "good pastors always agree with what each member believes". To voice a different perspective is to be violently labeled as anti-Christ, demon-possessed, the devil incarnate, and the ever present 'Jesuit spy'. Church members have pejoratively labeled me in many different ways over my years. My favorite is being called a heretic. But, why is it this way? I think it is because we believe we have a 'calling' to be 'faith gate-keepers', rather than faith builders. Gate-keeping always engenders fear. Fear begets dishonesty and pretentiousness, which in turn stifles spiritual growth, which in turn creates 'christian' atheists.

Let me be fair, though. I have many wonderful, spiritually mature Adventist friends. They live above the culture of shame, guilting, and name-calling. They have a deep commitment to the Lord - keeping first things (Jesus) always the best thing, not allowing any foolishness distract them from Him. I feel for them, only in that they find little safety in sharing their love for Jesus openly within the church because of those who define love for God in narrow and angry tones.

Thankfully, maturation in the Spirit is designed to succeed in all places and at all times. So, I remain a member of this church, ceasing all efforts to change what I cannot change, making efforts to change only that which God has asked me to change (me), and continuing to pray that God grants me the wisdom to know the difference.

Know Your Limitations, Exceed Your Expectations!

in progress...

The Impossible Possibility

by Rolf J. Pöhler (Spectrum, 1-7 February 2009)

A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for the Week of February 1-7, 2009, “Testing the Prophets”

How did God communicate to his prophets? What are the biblical tests of a true prophet? What is conditional prophecy? Are prophets fallible? Why do we believe that Ellen G. White’s visions and prophet dreams were from God? These are the key questions of this week’s Sabbath School lesson. As diverse as they are, they all focus on one crucial issue: How can we distinguish true prophets and/or prophecies from false/fake ones?

Ever since Sabbatarian Adventists regarded Ellen White as a recipient of the gift of prophecy, they have offered several criteria by which to test her (or any) prophetic claim. Among them, the unusual physical phenomena accompanying her visions have been mentioned frequently. However, they do not constitute a normative test for the authenticity of a prophet or the authority of his/her message. It is not the supernatural character of his/her visionary experience, but the divine origin of his/her message, that constitutes the hallmark of a true prophet (compare Jer. 23:16–32).

Commonly, the following four criteria are listed in Adventist literature, together with their corresponding “proof texts.” They are also named and discussed in this week’s lesson:

1. Agreement with the Bible (Isa. 8:20)
2. Fulfilled Prophecy (Jer. 28:9)
3. Confessing Jesus, the God-man (1 John 4:1, 2)
4. The Orchard (or Fruit) Test (Matt. 7:20)

As simple as these criteria sound and as biblical as indeed they are, just as difficult is their proper application. (Still, there seems to be no better way to test those who claim to speak authoritatively in the name of God.)

1. How do you establish the agreement, or lack of it, with “the law and the prophets” (Isa. 8:20)—or the Christian Bible, for that matter? True, prophetic messages will and must be “in accordance with the faith” (Rom. 12:6), which rules out any obvious disagreements with the basic Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, there may be more subtle ways of disagreeing with the received faith. In addition, prophets sometimes change their own views (1 Chron. 17:1ff ) or seem to contradict earlier ones (compare Deut. 23:2 to Isa. 56:3-5; and 2 Kings 10:30 to Hosea 1:4). Although God does not change, our human understanding does. This leaves room for genuine growth while upholding Paul’s criterion of the “analogy of faith.”
2. If fulfilled predictions were a sine qua non of true prophecies, quite a number of the biblical prophets would face serious problems. Not only Jonah’s specific announcement of the fall of Nineveh but also many of the kingdom and restoration promises of the Old Testament did not find fulfillment as expected. A conditional element in them helps explain their apparent “failure” (Jer. 18:6–10). At the same time, it shows the difficulty of using the fulfillment (or lack of it) of a prediction as a clear and unambiguous test of its validity. (It has often been stated that the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation are an exception to this rule of conditionality; still, it needs to be argued convincingly. Although the outcome of history is certain, the course of history may be less determined.)
3. Most Christians will agree with the following statement: “Every true prophet will point people to Jesus, the God-man, who is the Savior and example of all humanity.” For John, this implied a clear confession of the full humanity of Christ and the rejection of the Docetist view that denied that Christ had truly “come in the flesh.” The very reality of salvation depended on it. In an extended sense, this test “includes everything the Bible teaches about Jesus.” Does this rule out a somewhat deficient Christology or does it leave room for Christological developments? The fact is that Seventh-day Adventist teachings on Christ’s nature (sinful, sinless, human, and divine) and pre-incarnation role in heaven underwent some significant developments—Ellen White’s own views included.
4. Perhaps the best known of all the tests of a prophet is Jesus’ saying: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” As in nature, the growth of fruits takes time. In some cases, it may simply be too early to tell what kind of fruits the message and ministry of a prophet will bear when his preaching calls for the attention of and acceptance by its listeners. As in the parable of the weeds and the wheat, the full revelation of the true character of something may have to wait for a later day of judgment (Matt. 13:24–30). Besides, prophets are human and therefore not free from character weaknesses, mistaken judgments, factual errors, and even outright sins.

Inasmuch as none of these tests is sufficient in and by itself, one needs to apply all four simultaneously. But who has the right and qualification to do so? Who may apply these criteria and decide if they have been met adequately or not? This is the controversial issue behind many discussions about Ellen White. As long as everyone agrees that she meets the qualifications of a genuine prophet, everything is fine. Actually, it seems quite reasonable to argue that she meets all of these criteria sufficiently in order to qualify as a genuine prophet. But does this imply that all her views and teachings were therefore valid and correct?

This question—and even more so the answers to it–tends to stir up emotions among Adventists. While we principally admit that there were faults, flaws, and inconsistencies in Ellen White’s life and teaching, we rarely concede where she erred specifically. And while we often quote Paul’s well-known statement: “Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:20, 21, NKJV), we usually do not explain how to apply this apostolic counsel to her writings practically. Instead, we argue that to judge a prophetic message is to put oneself above the word of God, that fallible human beings must not criticize a prophet and his/her message, and that the proper response to it is faith and submission. This means that after applying the four criteria to a prophet, whatever he or she says will/should be accepted uncritically (or rejected totally). As a result, any specific admission of an error in Ellen White’s writings is regarded by many as inappropriate rationalist criticism of the prophetess and a lack of true faith in God and his revealed word.

However, Paul does not merely call for a general test of the character and teaching of would-be prophets, but rather for an evaluation of their message itself. He expects believers to be able to distinguish between true and false prophets and prophecies by a personal and Spirit-guided evaluation of their preaching and teaching. He does not concede this right hesitatingly, but rather presents it as a Christian duty. The focus and force of Paul’s five-fold counsel becomes quite clear when we read it in its immediate context and note its literary structure (v. 19–22):

Quench not the Spirit
Despise not prophesyings
Prove all things [TNIV: test them all]
Hold fast that which is good
Abstain from all appearance of evil (KJV) [TNIV: reject whatever is harmful]

Apparently, Paul reckons with the possibility that prophetic utterances may, at times, be less than useful and even wrong (compare 2 Sam. 7:3; 1 Kings 13:11–22). This does not cause him to reject those who expressed these views as false prophets. Rather, he calls upon the church to listen very carefully to the prophets and to critically evaluate their revelations in the light of what they know to be useful, good, and true (Rom. 12:1, 6). The same counsel is given by the apostle to the church in Corinth: “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said” (1 Cor. 14:29 TNIV). Or, as the NIRV renders this verse: “Others should decide if what is being said is true.” What applies to the preaching and teaching of New Testament prophets and even apostles (Acts 17:11), certainly applies no less to modern-day visionaries.

Can we test the prophets? We must if we want to be faithful to Scripture. Should we test all prophecies? Indeed, if we don’t want to be “blown here and there by every wind of teaching” (Eph. 4:14 TNIV). Will Ellen White’s writings survive this kind of screening? Much—in fact, most—of what she wrote has borne the test of time and of Holy Scripture. (Some has not.) Many of those who have tested her have all the more come to appreciate her ministry and calling. I, for one, have been truly blessed by her writings. They have exerted a positive influence on my life, my faith, and my theology. What has impressed me most, however, is not the flawlessness of her life or teaching but the lasting positive impact she had as a fallible and erring human being who became a powerful and Spirit-filled instrument in the hands of God.

Rolf J. Poehler is professor of systematic theology and coordinator for the Master of Theological Studies program at Friedensau Adventist University in Germany. He can be reached via e-mail at: rolf.poehler@thh-friedensau.de.

Albanians and Punctuality

It is no secret that one of the biggest challenges that we face in Albania is punctuality. Far be it from me to make generalisations but I can safely assume that Albanians, along with their Mediterranean/Balkan neighbouring nations view time in a more relaxed manner than North/West Europeans. Ok, before I keep on stating the obvious, let me get to the heart of the problem. It is with coming significantly late to church on Sabbath.

Allow me to make a list of places/situations that determine the Albanians' punctuality.

ON TIME when they go

1. To work (in a serious business/company)

2. To a funeral

3. To a football (soccer) match

4. To a show (TV, opera, theatre, cinema)


LATE when they go

1. To a wedding / birthday party

2. To church or any church meetings

3. For "coffee")

4. to a picnic

I could add 5. blogging and I can only point the finger at myself...

How does one make sense of this? Of course, what concerns me the most is the striking lack of punctuality in churchgoing. What is it that makes Albanians be on time for some things, but late for others? Is there something in the pattern of thinking that I do not see?

What would make an Albanian Adventist come to church on time? Can being late be directly interpreted as lack of spirituality? What can be done?

The rhetorical sentence "Would you be late to see the President or the Prime Minister of Albania? (implying "How could you be on time for the President or the Prime Minister of Albania and NOT for the King of the Universe?") has been already over-rehearsed and utterly exhausted.

I welcome your input.

julian

New Year, New Look, New Start!

Dear friends,

Greetings from Tirana! 2008 has been quite a year; so busy, volatile and crazy that, to your disappointment and my frustration, kept me from posting on this dear blog of mine.

Needless to mention, I will be relying on your input and participation to make THEOLOGY WITH MEAT a success. I am considering a change of style, to make the blog more down-to-earth and approachable to those of you who love Christ-centred Adventism and want to see Adventist theology making the impact it really deserves.

God bless, and get on board!

Julian

Apologies, etc.

Hi Everyone,

I must offer my sincere apologies to you all for the long draught in my blog. It has been a busy time, and I honestly have not been able to spare some time to put a serious effort into the blog. 

I certainly want to continue blogging  -- what I can promise so far is that when I do start, I will take it seriously. It is for this very reason that I am reluctant to put a set, cheesy deadline. I hope you all are doing great, and I wish you God's blessings as Trixi and I continue to rely on your prayers.

Thanks for your patience and understanding,

julian

About my last name...

Just saw this in Wikipedia... for all of you wondering about my last name's origin/meaning...

Kastrati
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kastrati is one of five tribes in the Malësi e Madhe district in Northern Albania. The word derives from the Latin castrum[1][2], and the local tribesman relate that their name comes from their hero, George Kastrioti widely known as the great Skanderbeg.

References
^ castle Look up castle at Dictionary.com late O.E. castel, from O.N.Fr. castel, from L. castellum "fortified village," dim. of castrum "fort;" cognate with O.Ir. cather, Welsh caer "town" (and perhaps related to castrare "cut off"). This word had come to O.E. as ceaster and formed the -caster and -chester in place names. Sp. alcazar "castle" is from Ar. al-qasr, from L. castrum. The move in chess is recorded under this name from 1656. In early bibles, castle was used to translate Gk. kome "village," causing much confusion. Castile the medieval Sp. kingdom, is from L. castellum, with reference to the many forts there during the Moorish wars. Castles in Spain translated a 14c. Fr. term (the imaginary castles sometimes stood in Asia or Albania) and probably reflects the hopes of landless knights to establish themselves abroad. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=castle
^ According to Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Woerterbuch, page 586 under kes- (palatal k), Oscan castrous (genitive case) and Umbrian castruo, kastruvuf (nominative case) have the same original meaning as castrum, which was an estate, or tract of land. Not enough is known of Oscan and Umbrian culture to understand whether the word was a military reservation in their cultures, allowing the possibility that the Romans took their military practices partially or wholly from elsewhere or developed them, or some combination.

A Study of Ez. 37 - THE VALLEY OF DRY BONES

TEXT (NASB): 1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. 3 He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." 4 Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.' 5 "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.'" 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then He said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life."' 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. 11 Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished We are completely cut off.' 12 "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'"

Copyright 1998 Julian Kastrati

All bibliographical entries are withheld by the author, out of plagiarism concerns.

The vision of the valley of dry bones in Ez. 37:1-14 is undoubtedly one of the best-known passages in the Book of Ezekiel. The extraordinarily graphic character of the vision has attracted and inspired countless artists through the ages, including the painters of the ancient synagogue of Dura-Europos in Babylon. Different interpretations have been given concerning the meaning of the passage. Thus early Christian fathers have interpreted the vision as an OT teaching on bodily resurrection whereas rabbinic commentaries have rather viewed it as a prophecy of the final resurrection in the messianic era.

This article seeks to provide an exegetical study of Ez. 37:1-14, aiming to discover the meaning of the passage in its own context. We shall begin our study by investigating the historical background of that time. Then, we shall take a brief look at the passage's form and structure. This is to be followed by an analysis of key words and expressions, including HaUr. Afterwards, we shall elaborate on the main theological themes of the passage (where appropriate).

As we begin our journey, it is appropriate and helpful to inquire first what the historical background was when this astounding vision was shown to Ezekiel. Most scholars agree that Ezekiel received the vision some time after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, during the Babylonian exile. It looked like it was the worst of times for Israel. The nation was in exile, scattered, broken, dispirited and depressed. Jerusalem was destroyed and it seemed that there could be no future for the house of Israel. The state of despair is forcefully expressed in verse 11b, as the exiles cry: ". . . our hope is gone; we are clean cut off" and also earlier in 33:10: "our offences and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" It is exactly in this historical context that the prophet Ezekiel receives the vision. One cannot think of a more relevant and appropriate description of Israel than the actual valley of dry bones. But before going ahead off ourselves, let us take a brief look at the form and structure of the passage.

Ez. 37:1-14 is an autobiographical vision narrative (Visionsbericht). First comes the vision, in which the prophet participates (vv 1-10). Lastly, comes the vision's interpretation (12-14) which is entirely a speech of Yahweh. In between comes verse 11, which contains the cry of the people who express their hopelessness in two metaphors. The preceding vision (dry bones) responds to the first metaphor ("our bones are dried up") and the following interpretation of the vision (disinterment) responds to the second ("we are clean cut off").

Two major characteristics of this vision narrative are the repetitions of key words as well as Ezekiel's tendency to mention every single detail, especially as he describes the reconstitution of the dry bones. The repetition and detail contribute to the solemnity of the vision. "The audience is thus given time to take in the amazing panorama. Key words recur repeatedly: "spirit/breath/wind," nine times; "bone(s)," eight times; "prophesy," six times; "come to life" five times.

It is also interesting to note how the vision is constructed in suspenseful steps. The first three verses set the grim scene of a plain/valley filled with scattered dry human bones and end with tension unrelieved through the question, "Can these bones come alive?" The following six verses (4-10) record Yahweh's decision to revive the bones and the literal fulfilment of that decision. The fulfilment process halts unexpectedly (8b) before life is restored to the reconstituted bodies delaying, and thus highlighting, the climax. Lastly (12-14), the interpretation of the vision follows its own order of procedure, the bringing of the people out (12a), the bringing of them in (12b), their conversion (13) and the filling with the Spirit (14).

As we now focus more on the text, we shall concentrate only on some key words and expressions and their role and contribution to the entirety of the passage. The passage begins with the opening formula, "the hand of Yahweh came upon me." This expression, which begins unusually with a simple perfect, seems to suggest that Ezekiel was about to experience an intense vision, even "a trance seizure" rather than the usual more "verbal" message. The English versions fail to do justice to the opening formula . . . "The hand of the LORD was laid upon me or came upon me" would be better. The Hebrew for "was" is frequently translated "came to pass" when it describes an event not a state of affairs. Here it expresses the prophet's sudden experience of being possessed by God. This sudden possession or seizure is accomplished by hvhy HaUrB, the spirit of Yahweh who is the source of visionary rapture and prophetic inspiration.

We have encountered here the first occurrence of HaUr, which evidently plays a central role in our passage. The word occurs no less than nine times in the 14 verses of the passage with varying nuances which embrace the whole range of meanings which the term has in the Hebrew Bible. Depending on the context, HaUr can mean, "spirit," "breath," or "wind/winds." Coincidentally, all three translations have been used here: "Spirit," vv 1 & 14; "breath," vv 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10; and "wind/winds," v 9.

Ezekiel is taken by the Spirit of Yahweh who sets him in the middle of a valley full of bones (1b). The word for valley is hcAQb which literary means "a cleft/opening," a plain surrounded by hills/mountains (from qb, to split, break open). The majority of scholars agree that this is most likely the valley mentioned earlier in 3:22 – somewhere in the wide plain of Euphrates in Babel. The choice of a valley is made to highlight the contrast with the mountain. Whereas the mountain is high and is identified with glory and life, the valley is low and is more identified with depression and death. This certainly rings a bell, as the historical context reminds us that exiled Israel is experiencing a period of deep depression and brokenness.

Interestingly enough, the valley is full of bones. The Hebrew is Mc@f@, meaning "bone," "substance." The plain is full of tvm;cAfE, "a sea of disjoined bones each separated from its mates – an extreme of deterioration." It is also interesting to note that throughout the OT, bones, being the most durable part of the body, are used to describe the deepest feelings, affections and affiliations (Ge. 29:14; Jdg. 9:2; Job 2:5; 30:30; Ps. 22:17). Sadly, the only thing that can be said about these bones is that they are numerous and dry, very dry. If anything, the prophet realises that "this is the place where death holds triumph."

At this critical moment, Yahweh breaks the uncanny silence with a penetrating question: "Son of man, can these bones live? (v. 3)" The prophet reluctantly answers "O Sovereign LORD, you alone know!" Ezekiel's answer is indeed very restrained. "In it we hear not the man of God who is gifted with special insight and transported into proximity to God, but simply the man who knows about God: 'You know.'" Through his answer, Ezekiel admits that as far as humans are concerned, the situation is hopeless. Evidently, he shifts the decision-making to Yahweh, the Creator. On his part, Yahweh decides to revive the bones and so it happens. Verses 4 to 10 record the prophecy and its immediate word-by-word fulfilment in two phases. It is significant to note here that Ezekiel "is suddenly transformed from being the spokesman for human impotence to the spokesman for divine omnipotence." As he prophesies, he witnesses the vivifying power of the HaUrwhich turns the dry, dead bones into a vast, living army of humans.

Up to this point, the reader may consider this as a presentation of belief in the resurrection of the dead. This, however, is not the case, as Yahweh pronounces the vision's interpretation in vv 11-14. "These bones are the whole house of Israel." The dry bones specifically represent LXerAW;yi tyBe-lKA, that is, the people of both past kingdoms (Israel and Judah), now largely in exile. This representation simply literalises the metaphor used by the people to describe themselves: "our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are clean cut off (11b)." Yet, the good news for LXerAW;yi tyBe-lKA is that Yahweh will raise her from the "grave" of the exile and settle her in her own land. He will put his HaUr in her and she shall live.

At this point, we can confidently conclude that Ez. 37:1-14 is a powerful resurrectional metaphor concerning the national restoration of Israel. Therefore, the passage does not constitute a presentation of belief in the resurrection of the dead, nor does it support any reference to the final resurrection of the Jewish messianic era. There is clear evidence from the historical context and the text itself that the dry bones represent the house of Israel in exile and desperation. This stirring visionary event contains powerful theological implications about the God of Israel. His divine omnipotence is clearly contrasted with the human impotence. He listens and responds to the cry of his dispirited people. He also promises to his people the vivifying power of his spirit – HaUr – the very protagonist of the vision of the valley of dry bones.